You are here

Echogenicity Head Office Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 November 2019

Echogenicity is operated by Echogenicity Limited. The service provides echocardiograms (this is a painless ultrasound scan of the heart. It takes approximately 30 to 40 minutes to perform and is used as a diagnostic test) to adult patients referred by the NHS across 11 clinics in Cornwall. The clinics are held in GP surgeries or community hospitals in Bude, Bodmin, Newquay, Helston, St Austell, Roche, Falmouth, Truro, Pool, Redruth and Portscatho. During this inspection we visited clinics at Pool and St Austell.

The registered premises of Echogenicity were not visited during this inspection as the registered manager stated there were renovation works ongoing. Patients did not visit the registered premises for any part of their care and treatment. When the office was functionable one administrator worked from this base and clinicians only visited on rare occasions to collect or drop off equipment or supplies.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on 5 and 6 September 2019.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Services we rate

Our rating of this hospital/service stayed the same. We rated it as Good overall.

  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and provided detailed scan reports. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
  • Staff provided good care and treatment. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, and had access to good information.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided support to patients, families and carers.
  • The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. The service was available five days a week. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for their diagnostic test.
  • Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

  • Training was not provided to staff in the safeguarding of children. While staff do not provide a service to children they may accompany adult carers to their appointments.
  • It was not clear that patients were provided with information on how to make a complaint should they wish to do so.
  • Full recruitment records demonstrating a robust recruitment process had been followed for each member of staff was not maintained.
  • Staff did not have the opportunity to meet to share information and learning.

Dr Nigel Acheson

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 November 2019

This service was not previously rated. We rated it as Good because:

The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff and made sure everyone completed it.

Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse, and they knew how to apply it.

The service controlled infection risk well. Staff used equipment and control measures to protect patients, themselves and others from infection. They kept equipment and the premises visibly clean.

The design, maintenance and use of facilities, premises and equipment kept people safe. Staff were trained to use them.

Staff completed and updated risk assessments for each patient and removed or minimised risks. Staff identified and quickly acted upon patients at risk of deterioration.

The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep patients safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment. Managers regularly reviewed and recruited additional staff when required to staff additional clinic locations.

Staff kept detailed records of patients’ care and treatment. Records were clear, up-to-date, stored securely and easily available to all staff providing care.

The service managed patient safety incidents well. Staff recognised and reported incidents and near misses. Managers investigated incidents and shared lessons learned with the whole team and the wider service. When things went wrong, staff apologised and gave patients honest information and suitable support.

However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

The provider should review the training provided to staff to include basic level one safeguarding children training.

Effective

Updated 7 November 2019

Caring

Good

Updated 7 November 2019

This service was not previously rated. We rated it as Good because:

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and took account of their individual needs.

Staff provided emotional support to patients, families and carers to minimise their distress.

Staff supported and involved patients, families and carers to understand their condition and make decisions about their care and treatment.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 November 2019

This service was not previously rated

.

We rated it as

Good

because:

The service planned and provided care in a way that met the needs of local people and the communities served. It also worked with others in the wider system and local organisations to plan care.

The service was inclusive and took account of patients’ individual needs and preferences. Staff made reasonable adjustments to help patients access services. They coordinated care with other services and providers.

People could access the service when they needed it and received the right care in a timely way.

It was easy for people to give feedback and raise concerns about care received. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and shared lessons learned with all staff. The service included patients in the investigation of their complaint.

However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

The provider should make information available to patients regarding the formal complaints process.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 November 2019

This service was not previously rated

.

We rated it as

Good

because:

Leaders had the integrity, skills and abilities to run the service. They understood and managed the priorities and issues the service faced. They were visible and approachable in the service for patients and staff. They supported staff to develop their skills and take on more senior roles.

The service had a vision for what it wanted to achieve and a strategy to turn it into action, developed with all relevant stakeholders. The vision and strategy were focused on sustainability of services and aligned to local plans within the wider health economy. Leaders and staff understood and knew how to apply them and monitor progress.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. The service promoted equality and diversity in daily work, and provided opportunities for career development. The service had an open culture where patients, their families and staff could raise concerns without fear.

Leaders and teams used systems to manage performance effectively. They identified and escalated relevant risks and issues and identified actions to reduce their impact. They had plans to cope with unexpected events. Staff contributed to decision-making to help avoid financial pressures compromising the quality of care.

Leaders and staff actively and openly engaged with patients, staff, equality groups, the public and local organisations to plan and manage services. They collaborated with partner organisations to help improve services for patients.

The service collected reliable data and analysed it. Staff could find the data they needed, in easily accessible formats, to understand performance, make decisions and improvements. The information systems were integrated and secure. Data or notifications were consistently submitted to external organisations as required.

Leaders and staff actively and openly engaged with patients, staff, equality groups, the public and local organisations to plan and manage services. They collaborated with partner organisations to help improve services for patients.

All staff were committed to continually learning and improving services. They had a good understanding of quality improvement methods and the skills to use them.

However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

The provide should retain and have available information regarding the recruitment checks for each member of staff.

The provider should arrange for all staff to attend regular staff meetings.

Checks on specific services

Diagnostic imaging

Good

Updated 7 November 2019

We rated the service as good overall with good ratings for safe,  caring, responsive and well led. We do not rate the effective domain for diagnostic imaging services.  However, we found four areas which the provider should address.​